The efforts around the globe to curb environmental degradation have become increasingly large;
people from all walks of life are now making an effort to live a "greener" lifestyle either through recycling, buying secondhand clothing, reducing their use of plastics, or by using many other eco-friendly methods. However, these efforts still have a minimal impact on the amount of degradation we are still causing to our environment. With an increasing global population and levels of consumerism, there is a rapid increase in the change of the global climate. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased since the 1960s from 0.6 0.1 parts per million (ppm) growth rate per year to 2.3 ppm per year from 2016-2018 (Lindsey 2020). The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also verified this and deems that governments should make efforts to decrease their CO2 emissions so that there is only an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century (UNEP 2019). Therefore, while civil society must be active in fighting climate change, deforestation, and many other negative impacts on the environment, the fight for a cleaner environment needs to be fought on a larger scale. Therefore, in order to have more of an effect on curbing environmental degradation, governments around the world need to implement more robust environmental policies in order to combat environmental degradation effectively.
When thinking of the environment, most people do not make an association with authoritarian regimes; however, with a rise in authoritarianism across the world, these types of regimes are becoming more important and should be further researched, notably, in the realm of environmental degradation. According to Freedom House, several factors help indicate the rise in authoritarianism: elections, term limits for executives, freedom of expression, rights of migrants, the safety of expatriates, and ethnic cleansing (Freedom House 2019). For all of these factors, there was a decline (besides an increase in cases of ethnic cleansing), and the availability of political rights and civil liberties are questionable (Freedom House 2019). In regards to term limits for executives, for the past 13 years, term limits in 34 different countries have attempted to revise
‧
successful authoritarian regimes, promoting and conveying its model of censorship and surveillance, and also by having one of the world's largest and most influential economies, a growing military, and a growing presence in the global world order, it is highly likely that authoritarian regimes are here to stay and will continue to spread (Freedom House 2019).
Therefore, it is imperative to the world and our environment that we better understand how this affects our ecosystem and how we can solve it.
With this in mind, it is essential to look at what types of governments tend to have better environmental policies in order to have the most significant impact. After reviewing the literature, one can see that most of the literature does take heed of authoritarian regimes, and it mainly focuses on how democracies are more prone to implement environmental policies. However, some of the literature – Gat (2007), Rosato (2003), Geddes (1999b) – explains that different types of authoritarian regimes can implement effective long-term policies. While most of these policies have focused on the economy or the financial sector, this literature is essential in order to see whether these types of authoritarian regimes can have any effect in decreasing environmental degradation. Therefore, by understanding the possible explanations that causes environmental degradation, future researchers or policymakers can have a better understanding of how to combat this issue.
By utilizing Geddes's, Wright's, and Frantz's 2014 dataset on authoritarian regimes, we can identify that there are four types of regimes: party, military, personal, and monarchy (Geddes, Wright, and Frantz 2014). The literature on authoritarian regimes is limited in terms of the environment and focuses mainly on other vital issues such as the economy, security, regime durability, and public goods provisions. However, the literature also outlines a newer topic known as authoritarian environmentalism, which is a model that allows for a stable, uncorrupt authoritarian regime to implement policies in order to improve environmental outcomes (Gilley 2012). Two important possible explanations that allow authoritarian regimes to improve environmental outcomes depend on the regime's selectorate and democratic institutions. The "selectorate" consists of two groups, one of which being the "selectorate" which is a group of people who play a role in choosing leaders and receiving benefits and exclusive privileges, and a second group known as the "winning coalition" who help the leader maintain their rule and receive benefits from that (Bueno de Mesquita et al. 2003, xvi). Democratic institutions are things like elections or legislatures that are
‧
generally found in democracies but have been implemented into authoritarian regimes to better connect the regime with its population.
With party regimes being the example, China, one of the most well-known single-party authoritarian regimes, has been doling out environmental projects and policies to help improve environmental outcomes in recent years. According to the World Economic Forum, China has been implementing policies that will allow it to fund a greener future (Song 2018). Certain things like dismantling coal-power plants over a certain length of time, innovating their environmental agency, and transitioning three major industrial cities to be turned into sustainable development zones that will implement the UN's Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. Also, China has been collecting an environmental tax in order to help fund a greener future and a less environmentally degrading economy (Song 2018). While all of these steps are important in regards to improving environmental outcomes, China's CO2 levels are still rapidly increasing with an output of 0.26GtCO2, and have increased global CO2 emissions (Hausfather 2019). Therefore, since greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are the most detrimental form of pollution (EPA 2019), yet the most difficult to detect by regular citizens, the question remains whether regimes are using their efforts to gain international recognition and appease its citizens or are trying to actually improve environmental conditions.
Overall, the issue of environmental degradation has been a huge topic around the world, especially with the younger generation. College students or other youth have spurred most environmental movements with one of the most pronounced environmental activists of today being a teenager from Sweden, Greta Thunberg. However, with much of civil society disengaged in public life (Carpini 2000, 341), the rest are limited with their abilities to make a change or make other parts of society care about the environment. Therefore, the role of government is crucial in regards to environmental policy implementation. With this in mind, by looking at different institutional settings, one can have a better idea as to which and what authoritarian regimes can have an impact in the fight for environmental protection. The environment is a critical issue, because not only could further environmental degradation lead to detrimental effects on the environment and humanity now, but it would pose grave risks for our future generations. By adding to the current literature, policymakers and civil society could have a better idea of which or what type of
‧
This thesis aims to fill a gap in the literature by contributing to the unwritten literature on regime type and the environment. This thesis will answer two questions. The first is, "What are the effects of authoritarianism on environmental governance?" This question is essential to this research because it is crucial to look at all types of authoritarian regimes and discover whether the structures of these regimes have a direct influence on the environment. It is crucial to determine whether some or any explanation allow for authoritarian regimes to pursue better environmental policies.
Some of the explanations in this research include the selectorate (Bueno de Mesquita et al. 2003) and democratic institutions. Once the explanations are determined, then it will be much easier to determine the significance and results of the second question.
Not only are the possible explanations important, but reviewing which types of authoritarian regimes have a more significant impact on environmental policies can help add to the current research on the issue at hand. Therefore, the second question asked in this research is, "What types of authoritarian regimes tend to have a better environmental performance?" There is quite a bit of research completed on how the conventional wisdom that democracies tend to outperform non-democracies in many different sectors (economics, security, peace, public goods distribution, etc.) is not holding to be consistently accurate. Therefore, if certain types of authoritarian regimes tend to outperform others and compete at the same level as democracies in these sectors, then one can look at environmental protection in a new light.
1.3 Thesis Structure
In this chapter, I have given a brief background on the topic and discussed my motivation for this research and what questions I would like to answer. The latter part of the paper will give a more thorough depiction of the research questions, why the questions were asked, and how to find and what the outcome is. In chapter 2 and 3, there will be an extensive literature review covering many different topics related to this issue, such as regime type and the environment, the impact of the economy, security, public goods, and regime durability on the environment, authoritarian environmentalism, and the possible explanations surrounding authoritarian regime types and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
environmental degradation. Chapter 4 will contain the research design and the plans on proving the hypotheses. Chapter 5, Authoritarianism and Environmental Performance: Time-Series Cross-Sectional Analysis and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), will include a detailed analysis on the authoritarian regimes’ environmental performances using time-series cross-sectional analysis.
It will also use spatial analysis to map out the levels of GHG emissions in different authoritarian regimes to determine whether there is a pattern in emission levels. Lastly, chapter 6 will be the conclusion, which will include a discussion on the findings of this research and also suggestions for future research.
‧
2 The Selectorate and Democratic Institutions:
Possible Explanations
This section will provide and explain the possible explanations that could be responsible for how authoritarian regimes respond and interact with the environment. Two possible explanations will help theorize how authoritarian regime types and environmental performance are correlated; these two possible explanations are the selectorate and democratic institutions. The size of the
"selectorate" is an important explanation because it determines how susceptible a government is to its selectorate. Once one knows a government's selectorate, one can better understand how decisions are made and who are making them. Democratic institutions are institutions that are fundamental to democracy, but when implemented into authoritarian regimes, they utilize it to appease the population and validate the ruling party. Collective regimes, especially party regimes, are more likely to implement democratic institutions, and once implemented, tend to be more productive. This is because personalistic regimes tend to focus on private rather than public goods (Bonvecchi, Simison 2017). Democratic institutions are a possible explanation for environmental performance because when regimes implement democratic institutions, they are more likely to provide more public goods, such as environmental concessions, which can, in turn, improve environmental outcomes for these types of regimes.
2.1 The Selectorate
A common mechanism in the realm of international political economy is "the Selectorate Theory,"
found in Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's The Logic of Political Survival (Bueno de Mesquita et al.
2003). In this work, Bueno de Mesquita et al. examine how political selection institutions, or the
"selectorate," influence the likelihood that a leader will survive or not. They also look at how the
"selectorate" influences a leader's behavior and decision-making practices. While this author's main point is to argue for economic demands, it can easily relate to environmental demands. Since political leaders need to remain in office for both democracies and autocracies, if the people are demanding environmental action from the government, then the government should make concessions. However, this is not always the case, as pointed out by Bueno de Mesquita, because
‧
there is always some group, known as the winning coalition, which helps the leader maintain their power.
The winning coalition is essential because, in order to remain in power, one must have the winning coalition on its side. As stated in the reading, “This group controls the essential features that constitute political power in the system. In democracies, the winning coalition is the group of voters who elect the leader; in other systems, it is the set of people who control sufficient other instruments of power to keep the leader in office. If the leader loses the loyalty of a sufficient number of members of the winning coalition, a challenger can remove and replace the leader from office” (Bueno de Mesquita 2003: 10). These members come from the "selectorate," and in democracies, the winning coalition tends to be larger if the "selectorate" is larger, but in autocracies, the winning coalition is small with a larger "selectorate." Therefore, in autocracies, members of the winning coalition will be more loyal to the leader because there is no opposition, and there is a higher risk of exclusion if one defects (Bueno de Mesquita et al. 2003, 11).
The "selectorate" can be seen as an essential explanation because it outlines how regimes act in order to keep power and appease their selectorate, or more importantly, their winning coalition.
This author believes that regardless of regime type, political actors have the common goal to remain in power, and therefore will do its best to maintain its winning coalition. However, the author also points out that if there is a small winning coalition but a large selectorate, then it is more likely that the leader will eventually be challenged (Bueno de Mesquita et al. 2003). However, in authoritarian regimes, this is not always the case. Some authoritarian regimes not only have a small winning coalition and a larger "selectorate," but also have managed to maintain power for decades. Therefore, it is vital to determine which types of autocracies stay in power longer and why. By determining this, one would possibly be able to understand which type can implement better environmental policies.
2.2 Democratic Institutions
The rise of authoritarianism has been seen as an increasing threat to the liberal world order for several decades. Many western liberal-minded scholars are intrigued by how authoritarian regimes
‧
order to have a better understanding as to why specific authoritarian regimes make concessions and provide more public goods to their population can depend on an essential factor, democratic institutions. As David Art cites in his 2012 article when reviewing Jennifer Gandhi's article, Political Institutions under Dictatorship, "…these democratic-looking institutions are not simply 'window dressings,' but that they play a central role in the construction, policymaking, economic performance, and durability of authoritarian regimes (Art 2012, 359).”
There are several different examples of democratic institutions, but the main two reviewed in this thesis will be elections and legislatures. Democratic institutions are institutions that make up the basis of democracy, its inner-workings, and fundamental structure. However, these institutions have been implemented in authoritarian regimes over the years in order to placate the population's demands and extend the regime's rule. By implementing these institutions, regimes cannot only concede to specific demands of their population, but it also allows them to allow for more public goods provisions on the local level. These institutions are essential because, once implemented, can help authoritarian rulers maintain stability at the local level, control political opposition, and also maintain their regime's durability (Art 2012).
The importance of democratic institutions in regards to authoritarian regime type and the environment is not only that it can provide for more public goods, such as environmental protection.
In regards to regime type, it is emphasized by Bonvecchi & Simison (2017) that these institutions, specifically legislatures for their case, usually are more frequent and more effective in collective regimes (party and military) rather than personalistic (personal and monarchy). The first democratic institution I will explain, elections, especially in a smaller electorate, can provide competition with local officials that can make them appeal to the majority and provide more public goods provisions to help them win re-election (Martinez-Bravo et al. 2012). The other democratic institution I utilize in this thesis, legislatures, is an institution that provides more public rather than private gain by constraining a leader's ability to utilize their power for their gain. Overall, democratic institutions are costly to implement in regards to a leader's legitimacy coming into question, but if not implemented or if ignored when implemented, they can have detrimental effects on the survival of the regime.
‧
3.1 The Role of Authoritarian Regimes
The role of government is essential for many things in a society; the government does not only set up the authority and the way a state is run or governed, but it is also responsible for anything that encompasses the state, such as establishing policies and institutions in order for the state to define its territory, population, sovereignty, and international recognition. According to Kirlin (1996), governments must develop effective policies for their public, make decisions that protect civil society, and deliver social services. However, the way that a government is organized or structured can be different based on the form of government established in each state. In authoritarian regimes, the government holds power in establishing laws and policies; however, in different authoritarian regimes, there can be an influence on decision-making due to the size of the "selectorate" and the level of democratic institutions in the regime. Regardless of this fact, authoritarian regimes' primary decision maker in regards to laws and policies come from the government, which makes it very important in regards to the environment.
However, it is essential not to overlook the effect on how government implemented policies have a significant effect on civil society. These policies can be especially crucial in authoritarian regimes where only a select few have the opportunity and ability to influence policy. Cavatorta (2012) explains that the idea of civil society and civic activism typically relates to democracy/democratization; however, in authoritarian regimes, civil activism does not look the same. Civil activism is different in authoritarian regimes because activism occurs in small groups or individuals rather than large, organized groups. Also, non-political issues are sometimes remaining non-political and not always forming into political issues on democratization and human rights. Moreover, activism in authoritarian regimes does not take place in the public sphere but rather must co-exist with state-sponsored civil activism. An example here was a Vietnamese woman, famous for her activism, imprisoned for distributing propaganda against the state. She was not only using the internet as her platform, but she was also pursuing activism at the individual
‧
it is not just the government that decides what actions to take, but instead that the demands from civil society, while typically constrained by the government, also affect policy implementation.
There are several different types of autocratic regimes; these include party regimes, personalist dictatorships, monarchies, military regimes (Geddes, Wright, & Frantz 2014). All of these regimes classify under the same category of an authoritarian regime, but these regimes can be quite different in terms of how they rule, the policies they will enact, the state relations they create, and many other factors. Recently, there has been an increase in research on which types of autocratic regimes are more prone to openness in terms of economic, security, education, or other types of
There are several different types of autocratic regimes; these include party regimes, personalist dictatorships, monarchies, military regimes (Geddes, Wright, & Frantz 2014). All of these regimes classify under the same category of an authoritarian regime, but these regimes can be quite different in terms of how they rule, the policies they will enact, the state relations they create, and many other factors. Recently, there has been an increase in research on which types of autocratic regimes are more prone to openness in terms of economic, security, education, or other types of